[saag] Re: [Ext] Re: draft-paulwh-crypto-components-02
"Salz, Rich" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.saag |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
The recent past (eg non-pq) shows a narrowing of algorithms to mostly be 1 NIST and 1 non-NIST algorithm. I don't see this document changing that. Of course, the non-NIST set of algorithms doesn't have the oversight from a NIST-like body, so we will likely have more arguments on which non-NIST algorithm is preferred. This draft basically just re-states we dont want a zillion non-NIST algorithms. You cannot draw a trend from one recent, fractious, discussion. Those who forget about SIKE are doomed to repeat it. If the draft “re” states that we don’t want a zillion non-NIST algorithms, as opposed to what, a handful of NIST ones?, that’s wrong because we never made explicit consensus to favor NIST. We were waiting for NIST, which is different. _______________________________________________ saag mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]